Herring v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Herring v. State

1930 OK CR 283, 288 P. 1116, 48 Okla. Crim. 35, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 16

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 14, 1930

DocketNo. A-7281.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 283 (Herring v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herring v. State, 1930 OK CR 283, 288 P. 1116, 48 Okla. Crim. 35, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 16 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of maintaining a public *36 nuisance, and was sentenced to- pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The record discloses that at the time charged two officers with a search warrant went to the place of residence of defendant and where also was operated a small grocery store and cold drink stand; there they found two customers who had just purchased two bottles of beer and were in the act of drinking it. They seized this beer, had it analyzed, and it showed more than 6 per cent, alcohol. It is argued that the evidence is insufficient and that the evidence introduced was obtained by an illegal search and that incompetent evidence relating to other offense was admitted. We have examined fully the contentions made, and deem it unnecessary to discuss them. None of them can be sustained.

It is further argued at some length that it will be an extreme hardship on defendant if this conviction should be affirmed. This contention goes to the matter of clemency rather than to any legal question presented by the record.

The case is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of maintaining a public *36 nuisance, and was sentenced to- pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

The record discloses that at the time charged two officers with a search warrant went to the place of residence of defendant and where also was operated a small grocery store and cold drink stand; there they found two customers who had just purchased two bottles of beer and were in the act of drinking it. They seized this beer, had it analyzed, and it showed more than 6 per cent, alcohol. It is argued that the evidence is insufficient and that the evidence introduced was obtained by an illegal search and that incompetent evidence relating to other offense was admitted. We have examined fully the contentions made, and deem it unnecessary to discuss them. None of them can be sustained.

It is further argued at some length that it will be an extreme hardship on defendant if this conviction should be affirmed. This contention goes to the matter of clemency rather than to any legal question presented by the record.

The case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 283, 288 P. 1116, 48 Okla. Crim. 35, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herring-v-state-oklacrimapp-1930.